6x17: Down the Slippery Slope!

[MIke Sherck]

Wife was watching a show on cable TV while visiting her mom's and came home really excited about what she'd seen. After some research, what had set her off were some (lovely, I have to admit,) color panoramas from 6x17 negatives. The photographer she had seen used a Linhof 6x17 camera, which sounds pretty expensive to me, but she's all enthusiastic about panoramas and wants me to explore in that direction.

How could I resist?

My own personal thought is 7x17 or maybe 8x20 or even 12x20 but there's no way I can afford to shoot those formats and color -- oh, my: it hurts to even think about it. So I need to learn about panoramic backs that could fit my 4x5 (older Zone VI), 5x7 (B&J,) or 8x10 (B&J) eventually another Wehman. I came that close a couple of months ago and then the septic system packed it in. *Sigh*)

None of these cameras have a Grafloc back -- is one of those a prerequisite? What are my options, or where can I go to learn about this stuff? My Google-fu seems to be weak today...

How tough will it be to find a lab which can handle developing and printing panoramic color negative film? Correspondingly, would I be able to print any of the panoramic formats using my Beseler 45 enlarger? I'd be limited to something 127mm or less in the longest dimension, I would assume. I've heard of 6x12 and 6x17; are there others?

Mike

[Drew Bedo]

How about a dark slide mask? An extra dark slide for whatever film holder you are using could have a window for the panoramic format you want to shoot. A 4x6 cut in half would give two 2x5 images on the same sheet of film. Many other combinations are possible in larger film holders. You would need to use front rise-fall and framing marks on the gg. Has anyone ever done this . . .the idea is right off the top of my head. The film you send to a lab will be standard sizes so no problem there.

[Oren Grad]

How about a dark slide mask?... Has anyone ever done this . . .

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3082

Of course, with a steady hand you can cut your own from a spare darkslide.

[Mark Sampson]

A few years ago, Calumet offered a 6x12 version of their standard C2N rollfilm back; that would fit on your Zone VI. However when I was considering that idea, the (then) $800.00 price put me off. Don't know if they're still made, or if not, how many there were- finding one might be difficult. But it might be worth searching for.

[shadowleaves]

dark slide mask is a great idea. I've done it a lot when i was using a 4x5 camera.

5x12cm:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/3905026659_1aa01de7af_o.jpg

6x12cm:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3905026855_448e0dd5d6_o.jpg




How about a dark slide mask? An extra dark slide for whatever film holder you are using could have a window for the panoramic format you want to shoot. A 4x6 cut in half would give two 2x5 images on the same sheet of film. Many other combinations are possible in larger film holders. You would need to use front rise-fall and framing marks on the gg. Has anyone ever done this . . .the idea is right off the top of my head. The film you send to a lab will be standard sizes so no problem there.

[shadowleaves]

That's exactly what I did...with an xacto knife and a thick ruler


https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3082

Of course, with a steady hand you can cut your own from a spare darkslide.

[evan clarke]

Wife was watching a show on cable TV while visiting her mom's and came home really excited about what she'd seen. After some research, what had set her off were some (lovely, I have to admit,) color panoramas from 6x17 negatives. The photographer she had seen used a Linhof 6x17 camera, which sounds pretty expensive to me, but she's all enthusiastic about panoramas and wants me to explore in that direction.

How could I resist?

My own personal thought is 7x17 or maybe 8x20 or even 12x20 but there's no way I can afford to shoot those formats and color -- oh, my: it hurts to even think about it. So I need to learn about panoramic backs that could fit my 4x5 (older Zone VI), 5x7 (B&J,) or 8x10 (B&J) eventually another Wehman. I came that close a couple of months ago and then the septic system packed it in. *Sigh*)

None of these cameras have a Grafloc back -- is one of those a prerequisite? What are my options, or where can I go to learn about this stuff? My Google-fu seems to be weak today...

How tough will it be to find a lab which can handle developing and printing panoramic color negative film? Correspondingly, would I be able to print any of the panoramic formats using my Beseler 45 enlarger? I'd be limited to something 127mm or less in the longest dimension, I would assume. I've heard of 6x12 and 6x17; are there others?

Mike

Put a couple of marks or a little gaffer's tape on your GG for the aspect you want, shoot the 4x5, compose within the marks and then just crop it on your easel to 5x14 or something like that. I have 6x12 and 6x17 backs and it's just so much easier with a sheet...Evan

[MIke Sherck]

I've cut masks for large format but it doesn't seem the way to go this time: my last local lab which processes sheet film no longer prints color chemistry. The last film I took in was the last batch they printed using chemistry: from now on it's scan ($30 per sheet) and then print via inkjet or something. I'm not happy because of the $30 scan charge, not the output: I can't afford $35 per contact proof for each 4x5 negative (or fraction thereof.) My "crap:keeper" ratio would have to improve by a lot to make this worthwhile.

I will check into the Calumet back, though: it seems that the vast majority of 4x5 backs require a Graflok back and I don't have one of those, nor does it look very easy to cobble one up for the 4x5 Zone VI (although I might have a spare 4x5 back for the 5x7 B&J from which maybe I could remove the existing hardware and replace it with a Graflok back. Maybe.)

Mike

[evan clarke]

I've cut masks for large format but it doesn't seem the way to go this time: my last local lab which processes sheet film no longer prints color chemistry. The last film I took in was the last batch they printed using chemistry: from now on it's scan ($30 per sheet) and then print via inkjet or something. I'm not happy because of the $30 scan charge, not the output: I can't afford $35 per contact proof for each 4x5 negative (or fraction thereof.) My "crap:keeper" ratio would have to improve by a lot to make this worthwhile.

I will check into the Calumet back, though: it seems that the vast majority of 4x5 backs require a Graflok back and I don't have one of those, nor does it look very easy to cobble one up for the 4x5 Zone VI (although I might have a spare 4x5 back for the 5x7 B&J from which maybe I could remove the existing hardware and replace it with a Graflok back. Maybe.)

Mike

Yea, damn color stuff..:rolleyes:

[rguinter]

Wife was watching a show on cable TV while visiting her mom's and came home really excited about what she'd seen. After some research, what had set her off were some (lovely, I have to admit,) color panoramas from 6x17 negatives. The photographer she had seen used a Linhof 6x17 camera, which sounds pretty expensive to me, but she's all enthusiastic about panoramas and wants me to explore in that direction...Mike

Mike: Circa 1985 or so, as I was climbing one of the foothills near my uncle's wilderness cabin in northern Maine, and the thought came to me that I should move up from 35mm to something larger. I basically wanted to do the same thing: take some beautiful panoramic photos of the countryside that I loved so much.

The result was the following year I returned with a Fuji G617 camera. I purchased this particular model after some long research on panoramic photo methods.

Now I do a variety of formats including quite a bit of 4x5-inch and at one time I did some 8x10-inch. But I still favor the 6x17-cm format and use my old Fuji frequently. Roll film is still rather cheap and easy to get processed (for me) since I don't do any developing. And the Fuji is rather easy to carry around in a backpack with accessories.

Today the old G617s are available quite regularly on auction and are an easy way to get started with the format at a reasonable price. Unless you want to spring for a Shen Hao or (as you mentioned) the Linhoff which is quite pricey.

Some examples attached of what the camera can do. Cheers and good luck with your endeavor. Bob G.

[Lachlan 717]

Have a good search of this site. There are myriad theads on the panoramic formats.

For what it's worth, here are a few of my thoughts:

*Forget 7x17/8x20 for colour. Obtaining film, processing and printing these huge formats will be a massive and expensive venture.
*Forget Camulet backs; not the best quality and expensive.
*Forget Linhof Technoramas. Awesome quality, but at too great an expense. The Chinese pano cameras are very, very good quality at a fraction of the price. Look at Gaoersi, DaYi, Fotoman.
*I use a Shen Hao 6x17 field camera. My lenses range from 72mm up to 360mm. It will easily shoot 1:1 with a 150mm lens. Full movements.

Again, search this site. And keep asking questions as you get more of an idea of which way you'll likely go: dedicated or adapted.

Good luck; I bet you end up shooting more that a few rolls/sheets whichever way you go!!

[rguinter]

I concur with Lachlan above and his advice. I like the aspect ratio of 6x17 so much that I find myself reaching for it first wherever I go. Then after I'm done with 6x17 I go back with my other gear. Sometimes even a year or two later.

Someday I may spring for the Shen Hao that he mentions or (if I save many more pennies) I may even upgrade to a mint (used) GX617 with all the accessory lenses. They are no longer made but quite an improvement over my G617. And still quite pricey on auction.

I also wouldn't spend any time with any other backs on my 4x5 than my Sinar (which I have two). And those are only 6x12-cm which is not nearly as pleasing to me as the longer 6x17 images. Although sometimes I do crop them down a bit if there is too much extraneous stuff at the ends. Like in the Chicago skyline shot I attached.

I agree with Lachlan too about the Linhof. Exceptional quality and one pays through the nose for it. Even on the used market they are pricey. I'm sure the images are sharper than mine but not enough to make it worth the price of 3 other cameras.

I hope you find a way to give the 1:3 aspect ratio of 6x17-cm a try. And if it pleases your wife that could be a good thing.... Cheers. Bob G.

[MIke Sherck]

The Fuji G617 is an interesting suggestion: I think highly of their lenses. I'll have to look the camera up and find out the details, particularly about lenses. I was thinking of something a bit shorter than a 105mm lens and both G617's on Ebay at the moment have that lens.

I spent today reading up on the XPan, the Linhof 6x17, and a few others but hadn't come across the Fuji yet. Let's hope they sell for significantly less than the others! I did see Gaorski and the other Chinese company; Photoman's web site says they're out of business. If the Chinese cameras are of decent quality then that may be the way to go: they seem to be optimized for 75mm or 90mm lenses, and those are the focal lengths I was considering. Wife didn't grasp her chest and fall to the floor when I told her the prices, so that's a good sign. :)

Thanks for the comments on the Calumet film holder. I thought I dimly recalled similar comments I'd run across years ago and am grateful to have the recollection verified. No sense paying for something that won't do the job.

I'm strongly considering getting a 6x12 holder for my 4x5 shortly, if I can solve the 'need a Graflok back' problem. Lots of the hardware bits on Ebay, finding a back for the Zone VI to attach it to will be an issue. I'll look and see what I can come up with. That would be an interesting panoramic option for color film; for B&W I already have a slide cut into a splitter for panoramics (I process my own B&W but send color out.) I haven't used it all that much so haven't practiced "seeing" in panoramic format yet.

Mike

[Lachlan 717]

Just a heads-up about the Fuji G617 (not the GX617):

I was chatting with Ken Duncan about 3 years ago, and the topic of the Fuji came up. His thoughts at the time were that they were crap. He didn't go into it any more; perhaps he felt that it was obvious?

I've owned one (briefly) and used a rented one a few times and think that they're okay; just very limited in how you can use them (no interchangeable lenses, no movements and no factory ground glass).

[Kuzano]

I am a fuji fan, but the price for 6X17 equipment puts me off. I've been shooting the G690 and GSW690 cameras for some time.

My method for 6X17 is to take two (sometimes three) overlapped exposures on tripod with some careful positioning. Then have the negs scanned, use pano software and create panos from 6X12 to 6X24.... with a $500 camera and roll film. The lenses on the large MF fuji's (GW690, etc.) produce images that equal most LF lenses.

Obviously this does not fit in the large format category, but it's certainly a less expensive way to create panoramas with the ease of roll film.

The results have been surprisingly good for my own purposes.

On another front, a photographer in our town using the Fuji G617 has for some time created panoramas with that format, printed up to 7-8 feet long and sell quite well for very high prices when matted and framed nicely.

[Lachlan 717]

I am a fuji fan, but the price for 6X17 equipment puts me off. I've been shooting the G690 and GSW690 cameras for some time.

My method for 6X17 is to take two (sometimes three) overlapped exposures on tripod with some careful positioning. Then have the negs scanned, use pano software and create panos from 6X12 to 6X24.... with a $500 camera and roll film. The lenses on the large MF fuji's (GW690, etc.) produce images that equal most LF lenses.

Obviously this does not fit in the large format category, but it's certainly a less expensive way to create panoramas with the ease of roll film.

The results have been surprisingly good for my own purposes.

This, in theory and in limited practice, is fine. I've thought about it with my 'Blad.

The issues will come when you have complex lighting and/or changing subjects. This is the same with MF as it is with digital stitching and HDR digital amalgamations.

For example, long exposures in changing light will be tough. Shooting landscapes with moving clouds is tough, not only when the clouds are in the shot, but also when the light they block or allow keeps changing across the scene.

Certainly worth consideration and a try, but limited in its application.

[shadowleaves]

Hi Bob, which lense did you use to shoot the 3 pics attached to your post? thanks, Han



Mike: Circa 1985 or so, as I was climbing one of the foothills near my uncle's wilderness cabin in northern Maine, and the thought came to me that I should move up from 35mm to something larger. I basically wanted to do the same thing: take some beautiful panoramic photos of the countryside that I loved so much.

The result was the following year I returned with a Fuji G617 camera. I purchased this particular model after some long research on panoramic photo methods.

Now I do a variety of formats including quite a bit of 4x5-inch and at one time I did some 8x10-inch. But I still favor the 6x17-cm format and use my old Fuji frequently. Roll film is still rather cheap and easy to get processed (for me) since I don't do any developing. And the Fuji is rather easy to carry around in a backpack with accessories.

Today the old G617s are available quite regularly on auction and are an easy way to get started with the format at a reasonable price. Unless you want to spring for a Shen Hao or (as you mentioned) the Linhoff which is quite pricey.

Some examples attached of what the camera can do. Cheers and good luck with your endeavor. Bob G.

[Lachlan 717]

Hi Bob, which lense did you use to shoot the 3 pics attached to your post? thanks, Han

If it's the G617, it's the Fujinon 105mm f8.

[Joshua Dunn]

Mike,
I would try to get a set up that works on a traditional 4x5 or 5x7. That way all your lenses that cover 6x17 will work with your Panoramic Back and you can still use movements. I have used the Linhof and Fuji (never owned either) 6X17 cameras but they are very expensive and limited in their use of lenses and movements.

You could use a 5x7 with a dark slide cut in half and that is close to 6x17. But 5x7 film is getting harder to find, there are many issues regarding using a cut dark slide (like composition). Sounds like you aren’t interested in that route any way. This would be the least expensive way to start in 6x17, albeit not the best.

Understanding that this can get expensive quick, I would get a Grafloc back for one of your cameras to start, or purchase a used camera that has one. A 4x5 would be the least expensive purchase a Grafloc for but would limit you to the Chinese made backs like this Shen-Hao back (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=123)(obligatory statement that I have no affiliation with Bader Graphic or Shen-Hao). A set up like this is a little clumsy and bulky but does work. I have one and have had some success with it but you are a little limited on the lenses you can use (because to film plane is now set further back and is wider than your rear standard so it is possible to vignette with a lens that’s too long and not focus at infinity with a lens too short) and the ergonomics on it are sometimes difficult to manage. Depending on your camera a set up like this may not work in a portrait orientation, probably only in traditional horizontal, landscape configuration. It just depends on your camera. This back would only work in a landscape mode on my Sinar and only in a Horizontal mode on my Horseman.

I am in the process of upgrading to the Canahm 6x17 back (http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%20back.html)(obligatory statement that I have no affiliation with K.B. Canham Cameras). I have the back and am modifying a Sinar 5x7 back to accept it. I’ll post pictures once complete. These are expensive and are the Holy Grail of 6x17 roll film backs. They only work on 5x7 cameras with a large opening on the ground glass back that can accept such a large roll film back to slide under it. But have none of the restrictions of the 6x17 backs that mount on a 4x5. Truly awesome.

Another option that may be worth consideration are some of the new dedicated 6x17 film cameras that are set up like a traditional view camera (front and rear independent standards coupled by a bellows) rather than a fixed standards like the Linhif, Fuji or Fotoman cameras. I know Shen-Hao (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/)makes one and I thought I heard that Chamonix (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/) (obligatory statement that I have no affiliation with Chamonix) was going to make one but I didn’t see one on their website. I have never used one but they seem interesting.

I you get really interested in the Shen-Hao 6x17 back PM me. Once I get my Canham set up running I should probably sell it.

[Bob Salomon]

A lot of responders don't fully understand the Technorama 617 S III concept. Yes, it takes 2.5 x 6.75" panoramas, And yes, that could also be done on a 5x7 view cam,era with two images per sheet. But have you ever walked above Dead Horse Point or through Death Valley or around Arches or through San Francisco carrying a view camera and however many holders you can carry along with a tripod and head big enough to hold the camera system?

The Technorama, if used without its shift adapter, is totally hand holdable. The finder has a very accurate frame that shows 90% of the field and that has a visible level that, if you use it, ensures that you prevent convering verticals in both portrait and landscape positions. In addition a refernce in the finder ensures level horizons. With a pocket full of 120 or 220 film you can wander and shoot, hand held, and make beautiful 5 and 6' wide prints!

Look exposure times, not a problem! One, you don't need a heavy tripod, should you feel you want to carry one for the T 617 S III, Even a Linhof Light weight Pro with a simple ball head is more then enough. Two, brace the camera against a tree, wall, rock, etc. for long exposures.

Using the 72mm, 90mm, 110mm, 180mm hand holding is no problem. With the 250mm it may start to become a problem. Also if you want to use the shift adapter you would also want to use the GG adapter and then you would need a tripod so you see what you shot as hand holding would not guarantee that you didn't re=position the camera and the view finders do not show the shifted field.

So yes, it is easy to shoot on a view camera but not nearly as convenient, or inconspicuous. A T 617 SIII may not be a miniature camera but carried on your shoulder and shot hand held it ios much more candid then a 5x7 on a tripod with a darkcloth.

[Lachlan 717]

A lot of responders don't fully understand the Technorama 617 S III concept. Yes, it takes 2.5 x 6.75" panoramas, And yes, that could also be done on a 5x7 view cam,era with two images per sheet. But have you ever walked above Dead Horse Point or through Death Valley or around Arches or through San Francisco carrying a view camera and however many holders you can carry along with a tripod and head big enough to hold the camera system?

The Technorama, if used without its shift adapter, is totally hand holdable. The finder has a very accurate frame that shows 90% of the field and that has a visible level that, if you use it, ensures that you prevent convering verticals in both portrait and landscape positions. In addition a refernce in the finder ensures level horizons. With a pocket full of 120 or 220 film you can wander and shoot, hand held, and make beautiful 5 and 6' wide prints!

Look exposure times, not a problem! One, you don't need a heavy tripod, should you feel you want to carry one for the T 617 S III, Even a Linhof Light weight Pro with a simple ball head is more then enough. Two, brace the camera against a tree, wall, rock, etc. for long exposures.

Using the 72mm, 90mm, 110mm, 180mm hand holding is no problem. With the 250mm it may start to become a problem. Also if you want to use the shift adapter you would also want to use the GG adapter and then you would need a tripod so you see what you shot as hand holding would not guarantee that you didn't re=position the camera and the view finders do not show the shifted field.

So yes, it is easy to shoot on a view camera but not nearly as convenient, or inconspicuous. A T 617 SIII may not be a miniature camera but carried on your shoulder and shot hand held it ios much more candid then a 5x7 on a tripod with a darkcloth.

In the interest of providing full information to the OP, the Fotoman, DaYi, Gaoersi and Art Panoramas can all do this as well on 120 film. At a fraction of the price of the Linhof (if price is a concern).

[Bob Salomon]

In the interest of providing full information to the OP, the Fotoman, DaYi, Gaoersi and Art Panoramas can all do this as well on 120 film. At a fraction of the price of the Linhof (if price is a concern).

120 is 4 shots per roll, you carry a lot less film and spend a lot less time loading and unloading on 220.

[Lachlan 717]

Again, in the interest of full information for the OP, 220 film is now very thin on the ground for options.

I also neglected to add the 2 Fuji Panoramic cameras to the options I listed.

The G617 and GX617 will shoot 220.

I also believe that the Horseman 617 shoots 220.

But, do your research. Do the films you intend to use come in 220? Do you switch film types often so don't need 220's added frames? Do you even want to shoot handheld?

[Kuzano]

Certainly worth consideration and a try, but limited in its application.

Your points are well taken. Using software to created panoramas does dictate being cautious in rapidly changing light, moving subjects and exposure times, not to mention close attention to a horizontal fixing of the camera AND a horizontal plane of rotation for the tripod head or camera base if handholding. I have hand held and successfully stitched up to three shots of 6X9 for close to 6X24.

But some examples that may get tricky are, for instance:
1) A marina full of power boats
2) A marina full of sail boats with tall masts
3) A marina full of sail boats with wind and rolling waves...

If you can image. The still marina with power boats will be easy at the stitches, but one must take care on directional change of sunlight reflecting on the water for exposure values. Taking those things into consideration, this shot should be easy to put together.

Second example will be the care taken to make sure the masts on the sail boats are fairly steady, as they will be an issue in the stitch areas of the panorama if moving much at all.

Third example, the rolling of sailboats and mast movement would like blow the image out at the stitch points, precluding any workable images.

So, yes, there are considerations and potential issues with stitched panoramas. However, knowing and working around these issues, I've still gotten more keeper than not, and found out my feelings about panoramic image production. I like it, and I have not spent any money on equipment to find that out. It remains to be seen whether I like it enough to purchase hundreds of dollars of equipment to continue, or plug along with my panoramic workaround.

I'm pretty sure that if I go with dedicated equipment, it will be a 6X17 Fuji, rather than a panoramic back for a large format camera.

I have used the cut down dark slide method on 4X5, achieving close to 6X12, and getting four pano's to a double film holder.

It just seems to me that packing a dedicated camera and using roll film is easier in getting around and setting up than any of the large format add_ons.

[Lachlan 717]

I'm pretty sure that if I go with dedicated equipment, it will be a 6X17 Fuji, rather than a panoramic back for a large format camera.


My only advice here is, if you already have lens/lenses mounted on Linhof-style boards, consider a camera that accepts these (whether this is a 4x5/5x7 with film back or something like the Shen Hao cameras is something you'll decide). Having access to multiple lenses at short notice is a very important criteria for me. It might/might not be for you.

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

I have in the past, every now and then, used the dark slide mask to divide 13x18 (5x7), and even 8x10" transparencies in two panoramic images. Gorgeous!
Nowadays, the prohibitive color film prices and development are less than encouraging to follow that route. Not to mention that such films are getting rare...
For simplicity's and price sake, I went panoramic with 120: with a Horseman 6x12 back for the 4x5" cameras, and with a Horseman SW612Pro. Both ways allow for movements and interchangeability of lenses with the ease of use of roll film. If I had the funds for it, I would like to try the Horseman 617 (I find the Horseman models much more interesting than the Fuji, or even the Linhofs, because of the shift capabilities, ease of use of ground glass, etc. The Rodenstock lenses are GREAT!).
Another consideration is the 6x17 backs for 4x5 cameras, but I haven't made up my mind yet. That's probably the cheapest way to go, although you need a tripod (I always use one with such equipment anyway!).
If perspective correction is important for you, you should not buy something that doesn't allow for movements, no matter how nice and good it is. That's my modest opinion.
Greetings,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY (http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

[Lachlan 717]

There is, of course, the Glide 617 that nobody ever seems to mention.

Mind you, for the price, you could get a 2 lens Linhof system...

[shadowleaves]

Horseman sw617 only accepts 120 film.

The back paper of 120 film adds an extra layer of protection against fogging and many people prefer the extra safety. Also in many countries other than the US, 220 film is not widely available.


Again, in the interest of full information for the OP, 220 film is now very thin on the ground for options.

I also neglected to add the 2 Fuji Panoramic cameras to the options I listed.

The G617 and GX617 will shoot 220.

I also believe that the Horseman 617 shoots 220.

But, do your research. Do the films you intend to use come in 220? Do you switch film types often so don't need 220's added frames? Do you even want to shoot handheld?

[antinapple]

None of these cameras have a Grafloc back -- is one of those a prerequisite? What are my options, or where can I go to learn about this stuff? My Google-fu seems to be weak today...

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

There is, of course, the Glide 617 that nobody ever seems to mention.

Mind you, for the price, you could get a 2 lens Linhof system...

Yes, there were times that I dreamt about a Dr. Gilde camera...
But if some of the cameras that we've been discussing here are expensive, the Gilde ones are REALLY so.
220 film capability is, in my opinion, more and more irrelevant, as the market schrinks and shrinks. We can be happy that we still have something to shoot in 120! For how long?
As a matter of fact, I can't remember shooting any 220 film for the last 25 or so years. I also don't own any more a camera that can use it, I guess. I also don't miss it!
Greetings,
Rui

[Bob Salomon]

"120 film adds an extra layer of protection against fogging"

A lot of better cameras do not have a red window to potentially fog film. This was a very spurious statement for cameras that have a metered film transport like a T 612 or 617 series camera.

[shadowleaves]

"120 film adds an extra layer of protection against fogging"

A lot of better cameras do not have a red window to potentially fog film. This was a very spurious statement for cameras that have a metered film transport like a T 612 or 617 series camera.

Your reasoning is completely wrong. First of all, Horseman sw617 that I was talking about, does not use red window. It has a metered film transportation mechanism. Second, The extra protection provided by 120 film's back paper is at work when the rollfilm is accidentally loosen, not when the film is in the camera.

[Bob Salomon]

Your reasoning is completely wrong. First of all, Horseman sw617 that I was talking about, does not use red window. It has a metered film transportation mechanism. Second, The extra protection provided by 120 film's back paper is at work when the rollfilm is accidentally loosen, not when the film is in the camera.

Film does not "accidently loosen" in a Technorama. The paper does not protect from edge fogging from a loosly rolled roll of film when it is exposed to light outside the camera. And 220 has paper on either end of the roll to provent fogging with a properly working camera. 70mm had no paper at al.

[shadowleaves]

Film does not "accidently loosen" in a Technorama. The paper does not protect from edge fogging from a loosly rolled roll of film when it is exposed to light outside the camera. And 220 has paper on either end of the roll to provent fogging with a properly working camera. 70mm had no paper at al.

No, 120/220 film does not accidentally loosen in most cameras. They do, occasionally, loosen in your pocket or backpack.

[Lachlan 717]

"120 film adds an extra layer of protection against fogging"

A lot of better cameras do not have a red window to potentially fog film. This was a very spurious statement for cameras that have a metered film transport like a T 612 or 617 series camera.

Tautology aside, perhaps you were a little strong with your language here, Bob.

Perhaps it was just irrelevant, rather than spurious.

Mind you, having dropped a freshly exposed roll of tightly wound 120, I have no doubt that I would have fogged more of the images had I not have had the paper back. Maybe not many more, but more none the less.

As Shadowleaves implied, your comments neglect knucklehead users with hands too big!!

[rguinter]

In the interest of providing full information to the OP, the Fotoman, DaYi, Gaoersi and Art Panoramas can all do this as well on 120 film. At a fraction of the price of the Linhof (if price is a concern).

Ditto with the Fuji. I've done hand-held shots with it although I prefer to use a light tripod. Bob G.

[rguinter]

If it's the G617, it's the Fujinon 105mm f8.

Yes that's correct. the G617 has only the one lens (105mm) which is a shortcoming. But I object to someone calling the camera crap. Agreed it doesn't have interchangeable lenses but it was not in that price-range either. I got what I paid for at a time when it was the only reasonable option to the Technorama at 1/3 the cost. I purchased mine well before the GX617 came on the scene with all the lenses and accessories.

Bob G.

[rguinter]

dark slide mask is a great idea. I've done it a lot when i was using a 4x5 camera...

I've done it in 8x10 with marginal success. Although others I'm sure have had good results. I never spent much time trying to improve my technique, preferring to use a camera designed for the format. Most significant problem I encountered was light bleeding through to the adjacent frame. I did leave a rather wide margin between upper and lower frames when I cut my dark slide mask but bleed through still seemed to be a problem. Bob G.

[rguinter]

No, 120/220 film does not accidentally loosen in most cameras. They do, occasionally, loosen in your pocket or backpack.

I disagree. I've had some 120 films spool loosely on the takeup spool. And after inspection I determined the cause was poor quality control on backing paper dimensions and/or plastic spool width. i.e., either the paper was a mm or so too wide for the spool or the spool too narrow... whichever.

I don't recall which films I had this happen with over the years but most of my films have been the big name brands. Bob G.

[jon.oman]

I have the Shen-Hoa HZX-45IIA. I'm thinking of getting the "Shen-Hao 6X17(120)for 4X5 Roll Film Back". The one for $595.00. The widest lens I have is the Nikkor 135mm f5.6. Will this lens work well with this setup? Also, what is the widest lens that can be used with this? I have the standard bellows. Would it be about 75mm?

Jon

[rguinter]

I have the Shen-Hoa HZX-45IIA. I'm thinking of getting the "Shen-Hao 6X17(120)for 4X5 Roll Film Back". The one for $595.00. The widest lens I have is the Nikkor 135mm f5.6. Will this lens work well with this setup? Also, what is the widest lens that can be used with this? I have the standard bellows. Would it be about 75mm?

Jon

I can't answer this for the Shen Hao but I can answer for a Tachihara.

I use 90-mm and 75-mm Schneider Super Angulon lenses with this setup regularly.

Minimal movements with the 90-mm and essentially no-movements feasible with the 75-mm. Both mounted with standard lensboards. If I got recessed boards I'm sure that would help with movements but I rarely need movements with such wide angles.

Bob G.

[jon.oman]

I can't answer this for the Shen Hao but I can answer for a Tachihara.

I use 90-mm and 75-mm Schneider Super Angulon lenses with this setup regularly.

Minimal movements with the 90-mm and essentially no-movements feasible with the 75-mm. Both mounted with standard lensboards. If I got recessed boards I'm sure that would help with movements but I rarely need movements with such wide angles.

Bob G.

Thanks for the info Bob. Do you know if my 135mm would work on something like this? I would have to buy the 75mm / 90mm, so I would like to start with the 135mm first. I know it may be a bit long with this back, but I assume it will cover it.

Jon

[shadowleaves]

Thanks for the info Bob. Do you know if my 135mm would work on something like this? I would have to buy the 75mm / 90mm, so I would like to start with the 135mm first. I know it may be a bit long with this back, but I assume it will cover it.

Jon

135mm should give you some space for movement. Nikkor-W 135/5.6 has about 24mm of maximum rise in horizontal format, at f/22.

For 90mm or 75mm, you can always get a Shen-Hao wide angle bellow for large movements with 6x17 back.

[rguinter]

Thanks for the info Bob. Do you know if my 135mm would work on something like this? I would have to buy the 75mm / 90mm, so I would like to start with the 135mm first. I know it may be a bit long with this back, but I assume it will cover it.

Jon

My guess is your 135-mm lens will work fine.

I have a 135-mm Schneider Apo Symmar I bought from someone here on the forum several months ago. I've only shot a few sheets with it but the little bit of extra bellows length makes for much easier movements.

With my 90-mm the bellows is not completely collapsed but close. That restricts movements.

With my 75-mm the bellows is completely collapsed and no movements are possible. I'm just lucky it focuses perfectly at infinity with the bellows collapsed. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to use it without a recessed lensboard.

And I have so many other things I want to buy first that I'm glad spending the $100+ on a recessed board can wait a bit.

Now when I finally get that 58-mm Super Angulon (sometime way down the road) then I'm sure I will need the recessed board for that one.

Cheers,

Bob G.

[jon.oman]

Thanks for the info guys! I'm glad that I can start with the 135. I'll have to save for about two months before I can get the back though!

Jon